eugene@pioneer.arpa (Eugene N. Miya) (01/23/88)
In article <1616@codas.att.com> karthur@codas.att.com (Kurt_R_Arthur) writes: >I'm running the risk of another holy war here, but REXX (IBM's system command >interpreter language for VM/CMS, now a part of SAA & due to be ported through >out IBM's architectures) seems to be a very good 'first language' because it I'm not partial to C as a first language, and I know all the BASIC and APL interpreter types are also out there. Interaction and real-time is a really important attribute. I'm becoming more and more convinced that lexically scoped, state-based systems aren't good first languages. (I think Mike Lesk made some good comments about this at the last Washington Usenix.) Some of these new computer graphics animation systems are seemingly good FIRST-time systems, and offer some real hope of getting BASIC (and LOGO) "out of there." From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
kers@otter.HP.COM (Christopher Dollin) (01/25/88)
Well here we are on a "let's plug our favourite language" trip ...
As far as teaching programming languages go, Sussex University use Pop11 as
the language taught to students at their Cognitive Studies Department. Many
of these students are not programmers, and Pop11 is intended to be accessible
to them.
Pop11 is a descendant of Pop2, which at least one other poster has mentioned.
A recipe for constructing Pop11 might run ...
Take the syntactic approach of Pascal [or Algol68], the data-type
philosophy of Lisp, the open stack approach of Forth. Simmer well, testing
frequently on novices. Serve. Update as necessary.
Me? I LOVE it!
Regards,
Kers | "Why Lisp if you can talk Poperly?"csrdi@its63b.ed.ac.uk (Janet: csrdi@edinburgh.its63b) (01/29/88)
Well, at Edinburgh we've been using Pascal for the last few years, but there is now a movement afoot to use ML as the first teaching language. I know that this year's first year will be getting introduced to ML quite shortly. My own experience of learning ML (in second year) had quite an effect on my programming style. Learning Prolog also affected it - I think in both cases for the better. Functional languages certainly give a greater appreciation of the computational process, I think, than procedural languages do. If you want an understanding of what's happening at that level, something like ML is a very good first language. --Rick. -- Janet: csrdi@edinburgh.its63b BITNET: csrdi%uk.ac.ed.its63b@UKACRL ARPA: csrdi@its63b.ed.ac.uk UUCP: not recommended - we pay real money for it! "Life would be so much easier if everyone read the manual."
pcm@iwarpo3.intel.com (Phil C. Miller) (02/02/88)
In article <932@its63b.ed.ac.uk> RDI@uk.ac.ed.ecsvax (Rick Innis, CS4) writes: >Well, at Edinburgh we've been using Pascal for the last few years, but there >is now a movement afoot to use ML as the first teaching language. I know that >this year's first year will be getting introduced to ML quite shortly. This is a really interesting movement you're discussing. I have used ML in the classroom, have even implemented a (subset) compiler. So far, the only context in which I have seen ML is the university environment. This is one of those situations in which a well-intentioned effort should probably be directed a bit more toward the mainstream. Perhaps a language like C++ or Ada (which are languages in widespread use in industry) would be better than a language which is, in effect, an experimental language. I have just changed jobs. In no interview was I asked whether I knew ML; in every interview I was asked if I knew C. >My own experience of learning ML (in second year) had quite an effect on my >programming style. Learning Prolog also affected it - I think in both cases for >the better. Functional languages certainly give a greater appreciation of the >computational process, I think, than procedural languages do. If you want an >understanding of what's happening at that level, something like ML is a very >good first language. Part of the reasoning behind a technical education should be to prepare a student for the working experience. I contend that exposing first-year students to a functional programming language does not fit that role. Phil Miller Opinions expressed are mine, not necessarily my employer's, etc.
shirono@grasp.cis.upenn.edu (Roberto Shironoshita) (02/03/88)
In article <2781@omepd> pcm@iwarpo3.UUCP (Phil C. Miller) writes: > In article <932@its63b.ed.ac.uk> RDI@uk.ac.ed.ecsvax (Rick Innis, CS4) writes: > >[re: a movement in Edinburgh to use ML as a first language] > > [ML only seen in university environment] > > [Some text deleted] > Perhaps a language like C++ or Ada (which are languages in > widespread use in industry) would be better than a language which > is, in effect, an experimental language. > [More text deleted] > > >[Functional languages are better than procedural] > > Part of the reasoning behind a technical education should be to prepare > a student for the working experience. I contend that exposing > first-year students to a functional programming language does not fit > that role. The crucial word here is _technical_. The question that arises is whether a particular Computer Science program is preparing students to go into industry, or whether it is preparing them to go to graduate school and then to research. Some programs stress the often-called "real world," whereas others stress the theory behind CS. I believe a well-rounded BSE program should prepare students for both. Thus, both procedural and functional languages should be introduced in the first year. This doesn't mean that students should know all the ins and outs of either kind of language by their sophomore year; quite on the contrary, they shouldn't be burdened so. They should, however, be able to cope with both kinds. Roberto Shironoshita ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer 1: The opinions expressed here are my own. The University need not share them, or even be aware of them. Disclaimer 2: Like most humans, I'm bound to err at times. I believe what I have said, but agree that I may be wrong. @@@@@@@@@\ Full Name: Roberto Shironoshita @@ @@ Occupation: BSE candidate in Computer Science @@ @@ Organization: University of Pennsylvania @@@@@@@@/ @@ Network Address: @@ PENNnet: shirono@eniac.seas @@@@ Internet: shirono@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte) (02/04/88)
In article <2781@omepd>, pcm@iwarpo3.intel.com (Phil C. Miller) writes: > Part of the reasoning behind a technical education should be to prepare > a student for the working experience. I contend that exposing > first-year students to a functional programming language does not fit > that role. No, perhaps not (although the first language I learned in college was Lisp, which was also the language I programmed in in my first job after college). Many, probably most, CS graduates will wind up programming in C, or Ada, or FORTRAN, or assembler. But this does not mean that those languages have to be taught in first year college courses. There is plenty of time in a four year CS program to teach all the practical tools. It's more important to teach students concepts of algorithms and data structures and correctness and documentation and structured design than to teach individual programming languages. Starting a first year student off with a language like C or FORTRAN or Ada or assembler is like teaching an infant to swim by throwing him into the ocean. It may work, but the mortality rate seems a bit high. Start him off in calmer waters until he's strong enough to handle the ocean. And while he's in calm waters, you can concentrate on teaching him technique. -- -Peter Schachte pds@quintus.uucp ...!sun!quintus!pds
robison@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu (02/05/88)
I've heard that MIT teachs Scheme and CLU. Since these are not mainstream languages, obviously no one hires MIT graduates. - Arch
debray@arizona.edu (Saumya Debray) (02/05/88)
In article <2781@omepd>, pcm@iwarpo3.intel.com (Phil C. Miller) writes: > Part of the reasoning behind a technical education should be to prepare > a student for the working experience. I contend that exposing > first-year students to a functional programming language does not fit > that role. Assuming you're not referring to two-year trade schools that crank out programmers, I disagree. In my opinion, a primary purpose of a CS degree program is to teach students the basic principles of computation. I feel that at the early stages, this is best done using a declarative language. Starting out with high-level assemblers like C or Basic can all too easily damage students' brains to a point where they have a hard time grasping any concept not directly available in these languages. If your student progresses beyond the first year, he'll presumably encounter languages like C; with early exposure to declarative languages, he should have the background to use these in a disciplined way. If he doesn't progress beyond the first year, of course, the point is moot. > [ ... ] I have just changed jobs. In no interview was I asked > whether I knew ML; in every interview I was asked if I knew C. A lot of interviewers are idiots who'll also ask you whether you've worked on machine PQR and operating system XYZ. Do you feel that, in "preparing a student for the work experience", schools should dispense with computer architecture courses, in favor of training on a dozen different machines? -- Saumya Debray CS Department, University of Arizona, Tucson internet: debray@arizona.edu uucp: {allegra, cmcl2, ihnp4} !arizona!debray
esh@otter.hple.hp.com (Sean Hayes) (02/05/88)
In article <2781@omepd>, pcm@iwarpo3.intel.com (Phil C. Miller) writes: > Part of the reasoning behind a technical education should be to prepare > a student for the working experience. I contend that exposing > first-year students to a functional programming language does not fit > that role. It should also be the goal of good educational establishments to promote technologies that stand a good chance of being used in the future. To that end I was taught C and UNIX when nobody in Industry wanted it, and in fact I would contend that the reason Industry wants it now is because it was taught to undergraduates who now make up the bulk of Industry. (1/2 :-) It is entirely reasonable to expose first years to declarative languages in their first year, especially when most of them have been brain damaged by hacking in BASIC and Assembler on their whizz-bang micros. ----------- |Sean Hayes, Hewlett Packard Laboratories, Bristol, England| |net: esh@hplb.uucp esh%shayes@hplabs.HP.COM ..!mcvax!ukc!hplb!esh|
vic@zen.UUCP (Victor Gavin) (02/08/88)
I personally feel that the teaching of a non-procedural language in the first year of a computing science course is an excellent idea. One of the main problems that I have noticed in classes is all the snotty nosed kids who have ``learned'' to program at home on their BASIC computers, *all by themselves*. Unfortunately their methods and practices usually stink. This means that before you can teach them Good Habits, you have to unlearn them of their existing Bad Habits. By forcing them to use a language which doesn't allow them access to their old habits you make it easier to show them what you are talking about. Then when you start to show them how to program in procedural languages they may be a bit easier to handle. vic -- Victor Gavin Zengrange Limited vic@zen.co.uk Greenfield Road ..!mcvax!ukc!zen.co.uk!vic Leeds LS9 8DB +44 532 489048 England
pcm@iwarpo3.intel.com (Phil C. Miller) (02/09/88)
In article <3730@megaron.arizona.edu> debray@arizona.edu (Saumya Debray) writes: >In article <2781@omepd>, pcm@iwarpo3.intel.com (Phil C. Miller) writes: >> Part of the reasoning behind a technical education should be to prepare >> a student for the working experience. I contend that exposing >> first-year students to a functional programming language does not fit >> that role. > >Assuming you're not referring to two-year trade schools that crank out >programmers, I disagree. In my opinion, a primary purpose of a CS >degree program is to teach students the basic principles of computation. I cannot agree that languages like Prolog and ML teach students the basic principles of computation. Prolog is quite foreign to the underlying structure of existing (von Neumann) architectures. ML, as a functional programming language, enforces a programming style which is (1) inefficient; (2) not in widespread use; (3) not compatible with most algorithms which appear in the literature. Seems to me that any of these are an adequate counter-argument to use of ML as an introductory language. Prolog, while a fine language for AI/DBMS applications, is simply not a general-purpose language. >I feel that at the early stages, this is best done using a declarative >language. Starting out with high-level assemblers like C or Basic can all >too easily damage students' brains to a point where they have a hard time >grasping any concept not directly available in these languages. The generalization inferred by this is that any programmer not exposed on day one to declarative languages is brain-damaged. This covers 99.99999% of programmers. Too bad, if only Donald Knuth and Per Brinch Hansen had seen ML before they were ruined. >If your student progresses beyond the first year, he'll presumably >encounter languages like C; with early exposure to declarative languages, >he should have the background to use these in a disciplined way. If he >doesn't progress beyond the first year, of course, the point is moot. This brings us full circle to the original point: what should be the first language a student is taught. Most universities use Pascal or C, which at least offer the twin advantages of (1) widespread use and (2) some comprehensible relationship to the underlying architecture. >> [ ... ] I have just changed jobs. In no interview was I asked >> whether I knew ML; in every interview I was asked if I knew C. > >A lot of interviewers are idiots who'll also ask you whether you've worked >on machine PQR and operating system XYZ. Do you feel that, in "preparing a >student for the work experience", schools should dispense with computer >architecture courses, in favor of training on a dozen different machines? I obviously said nothing of the kind, directly or indirectly. Questioning an applicant regarding his/her level of expertise in a particular programming language gives an interviewer some assessment of the applicant's potential for contribution TO AN EXISTING SOFTWARE METHODOLOGY. In other words, given that a company needs someone to work on Unix in C for a project which may already be behind schedule, they merely wish to know how long it will be before the applicant can contribute. I'll close my comments (and hopefully terminate the religious tirade of ML fans) by stating that declarative languages have a place in computer science education. I happen to feel that the place is graduate school and not undergraduate. One minor point I should make here: I have formally studied both ML and Prolog in graduate school, and I think both are fine languages. I just don't think a first-year student see them as their first language, just like I don't think Latin is a good language to teach your children when they are first learning to talk: you teach them the language most commonly in use in their culture. >-- >Saumya Debray CS Department, University of Arizona, Tucson > > internet: debray@arizona.edu > uucp: {allegra, cmcl2, ihnp4} !arizona!debray Phil Miller Only I am responsible for my opinions.
markv@uoregon.UUCP (Mark VandeWettering) (02/09/88)
In article <2809@omepd> pcm@iwarpo3.UUCP (Phil C. Miller) writes: >In article <3730@megaron.arizona.edu> debray@arizona.edu (Saumya Debray) writes: >>In article <2781@omepd>, pcm@iwarpo3.intel.com (Phil C. Miller) writes: >>> Part of the reasoning behind a technical education should be to prepare >>> a student for the working experience. I contend that exposing >>> first-year students to a functional programming language does not fit >>> that role. If this is so, then I would expect to receive an education (if it can be called that) in C, Pascal, Fortran and Assembler. While each of these languages may have its own usage, they are really not all that difficult. The important thing is PROGRAMMING WELL, not a particular language. >>Assuming you're not referring to two-year trade schools that crank out >>programmers, I disagree. In my opinion, a primary purpose of a CS >>degree program is to teach students the basic principles of computation. And to show them that there are many ways to view computation, as a functional machine with simple substitution semantics, logic programming, traditional von Neumann machines, object oriented programming. I have applauded the Abelson and Sussman because they admirably achieve this goal in Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, which was recently adopted as the text for our undergraduate program here at the U of Oregon. >I cannot agree that languages like Prolog and ML teach students the >basic principles of computation. Prolog is quite foreign to the >underlying structure of existing (von Neumann) architectures. ML, as a >functional programming language, enforces a programming style which is >(1) inefficient; (2) not in widespread use; (3) not compatible with >most algorithms which appear in the literature. Seems to me that any >of these are an adequate counter-argument to use of ML as an >introductory language. Prolog, while a fine language for AI/DBMS >applications, is simply not a general-purpose language. You make several points here which are questionable. The efficiency argument has two sides: a language may encourage inefficient solutions, or the implementation of a language may be itself inefficient. The first is true of any language; it is possible to write inefficient programs in almost any language. The second is being dealt with by more effective and efficient compilers. Part of the sucess is due to the fact that languages like Scheme and ML (and Miranda and SASL, thanks David Turner) have a clean semantics that allow you to reason formally about how compilation should proceed. "Not in widespread use" is a questionable argument at best. Fortran is in wide use, but I would shoot anyone who taught it. C, well, I find it a necessary evil, but anticipate C++ as taking its place shortly (like when g++ is stable). Languages like C and Pascal and Fortran are all really not all that different, and not that hard to pick up once you have a good grasp of basic programming skills. Your last argument is perhaps the most persuasive, there doesn't seem to be a good body of literature of how to solve traditional problems in a functional style. This doesn't mean that someone shouldn't do so, however, and I anticipate greater work to be done in this area. In the mean time, a language such as Scheme allows you to at least get a taste of a language with pure semantics, and still allows programming in a traditional procedural sense. >>I feel that at the early stages, this is best done using a declarative >>language. Starting out with high-level assemblers like C or Basic can all >>too easily damage students' brains to a point where they have a hard time >>grasping any concept not directly available in these languages. Emphasize computation, and how it may be accomplished, not how a particular LANGUAGE or IMPLEMENTATION may be accomplished. >The generalization inferred by this is that any programmer not exposed on >day one to declarative languages is brain-damaged. This covers 99.99999% >of programmers. Too bad, if only Donald Knuth and Per Brinch Hansen had seen >ML before they were ruined. Donald Knuth is an amazing man, and perhaps in 100 lifetimes I might accomplish 1% of what he has done, but he is hardly a sparkling example of a programmer. If you need a chuckle, read the intro to volume 1 of The Art of Computer Programming, in which he explains his MIX machine, and how all programs will have to be written in assembler. These texts, while excellent in many way, are considerably less useful because they are too specifically tied to a particular form of programming. >>If your student progresses beyond the first year, he'll presumably >>encounter languages like C; with early exposure to declarative languages, >>he should have the background to use these in a disciplined way. If he >>doesn't progress beyond the first year, of course, the point is moot. Agreed. Don't cater to people who have passing interest in CIS, teach something of the science that computer science is rapidly developing. By teaching "useful" skills, you breed a generation of programmers that believe that they understand computation, but whose fundamental knowledge of computers is constrained by the language that they use to express it. >This brings us full circle to the original point: what should be the first >language a student is taught. Most universities use Pascal or C, which at >least offer the twin advantages of (1) widespread use and (2) some >comprehensible relationship to the underlying architecture. I know of very few people who have gone through low level CIS program that could tell me with any real conviction how the underlying architecture supported C or Pascal execution. If this is true, then why bother teaching them? If they have no idea of how a computer works, why teach them of a register machine? (Yeah, I knowk, that's how they work, but they probably won't understand that until much later) >>> [ ... ] I have just changed jobs. In no interview was I asked >>> whether I knew ML; in every interview I was asked if I knew C. Well, if ya asked me how I earned my bread and butter, I wouldn't say ML. But we are talking about ideals here (or at least I am). >>A lot of interviewers are idiots who'll also ask you whether you've worked >>on machine PQR and operating system XYZ. Do you feel that, in "preparing a >>student for the work experience", schools should dispense with computer >>architecture courses, in favor of training on a dozen different machines? JCL? Fortran? "Just say no!" :-) >I obviously said nothing of the kind, directly or indirectly. > >Questioning an applicant regarding his/her level of expertise in a >particular programming language gives an interviewer some assessment of >the applicant's potential for contribution TO AN EXISTING SOFTWARE >METHODOLOGY. In other words, given that a company needs someone to >work on Unix in C for a project which may already be behind schedule, >they merely wish to know how long it will be before the applicant can >contribute. If they add someone to a project that is behind, it will get further behind. Noone can be dropped into a vacuum and expected to churn code from day one. >I'll close my comments (and hopefully terminate the religious tirade of >ML fans) by stating that declarative languages have a place in computer >science education. I happen to feel that the place is graduate school >and not undergraduate. It depends. I would say they have not much of a place in an education which is deemed to be practical (although I reserve the right to change my mind, I am beginning to believe some more of the declarative doctrine). You are not going to get much call for ML programming, which probably means your time could be better spent. >One minor point I should make here: I have formally studied both ML and >Prolog in graduate school, and I think both are fine languages. I just >don't think a first-year student see them as their first language, just >like I don't think Latin is a good language to teach your children when >they are first learning to talk: you teach them the language most commonly >in use in their culture. For interesting reading on "first language?" questions, try SIGPLAN Notices vol 22, number 3, march 87 "A Critique of Abelson and Sussman or why Calculating is better than Scheming" by Philip Wadler and of course Abelson and Sussman. >>-- >>Saumya Debray CS Department, University of Arizona, Tucson >Phil Miller mark vandewettering, university of oregon cis department
anw@nott-cs.UUCP (02/10/88)
In article <1154@zen.UUCP> vic@zen.UUCP (Victor Gavin) writes: >One of the main problems that I have noticed in classes is all the snotty ^^^^^^ >nosed kids who have ``learned'' to program at home on their BASIC computers, ^^^^^ >*all by themselves*. We obviously have a better class of student than you do. Why knock people who are motivated enough to do something "all by themselves"? >Unfortunately their methods and practices usually stink. We obviously have a better class of student than you do. >This means that before you can teach them Good Habits, you have to unlearn >them of their existing Bad Habits. > >By forcing them to use a language which doesn't allow them access to their old >habits you make it easier to show them what you are talking about. [...] This is pedagogically disastrous. "Forcing" them to do *anything* will ensure that they treat you as the opposition. They will be saying "In Basic, we could do so-and-so, why can't we do it in your supposedly superior language?". You have to demonstrate that your way is superior, not ram down their throats what pathetic, snivelling creatures they are for knowing only Basic. The problem is that, in the early stages, your way almost certainly isn't superior. All of the standard elementary computing problems -- solve a quadratic, partition an array, draw a graph, count the number of words in this sentence, etc. -- go just as well and as easily in Basic, structured or not, as in [name your favourite language], and they know Basic better than [nyfl]. Further, their Basic on a home computer very likely runs rings around [nyfl] on [nyf computer] when it comes to graphics, sound, games, etc. Why should they be interested in [nyfl]? The answer comes much later, when they move up from toy programs to serious programs, and when software maintenance becomes a serious problem to them. But you can't -- and shouldn't -- rush the process. Just do things your way, let them do things their way, help them constructively when they get into trouble, and let osmosis work in its own good time.
csrdi@its63b.ed.ac.uk (Janet: rick@uk.ac.ed) (02/10/88)
In article <2781@omepd> pcm@iwarpo3.UUCP (Phil C. Miller) writes: >> RDI@uk.ac.ed.ecsvax (ME!) writes: >> [my comments about shifting to ML as a first language] > >This is a really interesting movement you're discussing..[deleted]..So >far, the only context in which I have seen ML is the university >environment. > It seems the Ministry of Defence are now asking for programs specs to be written in ML. Pity the programs then have to be written in ADA.(spit) It seems the movement is now towards Modula-2 as a first teaching language, but ML will continue to be taught in first year, in the second half of the course. > >> [My comments about learning ML and Prolog affecting programming style] > >Part of the reasoning behind a technical education should be to prepare >a student for the working experience. I contend that exposing >first-year students to a functional programming language does not fit >that role. A friend of mine commented in reply to my earlier message that it's another application of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis - a language that doesn't affect the way you think about prgramming isn't worth knowing. My contention is that if you can't learn from something different you are sadly lacking somewhere. As for preparing students for the working experience, wasn't that discussed here last year too? If you know *how* to learn then you can do almost anything within your own limits. Sadly, too many universities (this one included) take the view that they are here to turn out people with vocational qualifications rather than an ability to perceive and learn. Putting it another way, universities are places for getting a degree, not an education. (I'll leave this track before I start getting political, as I know who I blame for this state of affairs.) --Rick. -- Janet: rick@uk.ac.ed BITNET: rick%uk.ac.ed@UKACRL ARPA: rick@ed.ac.uk UUCP: rick%uk.ac.ed%ukc@mcvax "Life would be so much easier if everyone read the manual."
robison@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu (02/11/88)
Re: Knuth and MIX
The use of the arcane MIX code in The Art of Computer Programming reflects
the ancient times in which it was written. I've heard that Knuth is rewriting
The Art of Computer Programming with Pascal in place of MIX. He has also
published a book of TeX's source code with commentary - in this he is certainly
a sparkling example of a programmer.
Arch D. Robison
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
CSNET: robison@UIUC.CSNET
UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!robison
ARPA: robison@B.CS.UIUC.EDU (robison@UIUC.ARPA)mmh@ivax.doc.ic.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) (02/12/88)
In article <975@its63b.ed.ac.uk> csrdi@itspna (R.Innis) writes: >anything within your own limits. Sadly, too many universities (this one >included) take the view that they are here to turn out people with vocational >qualifications rather than an ability to perceive and learn. Putting it >another way, universities are places for getting a degree, not an education. >(I'll leave this track before I start getting political, as I know who I blame Surely the best thing is that prospective students should have a choice of courses some offering a route to programming via conventional languages, others via experimental/sounder languages. It should be made clear to the students what is on offer and the arguments both ways. The level of demand would dictate the balance between the two.
wcs@ho95e.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart) (02/14/88)
In article <3730@megaron.arizona.edu> debray@arizona.edu (Saumya Debray) writes: > > I contend that exposing first-year students to a functional > > programming language does not fit that role. > >Assuming you're not referring to two-year trade schools that crank out >programmers, I disagree. In my opinion, a primary purpose of a CS >degree program is to teach students the basic principles of computation. Remember that 1st-year students, even CS students, are studying more than just CS100, and, if possible, they should have *some* usable programming knowledge as soon as possible. While it's probably a Bad Thing to expose them to BASIC, whatever functional language you teach them had better be adequate for doing chemistry and physics homework, numerical integration for calculus, statistics for their psych classes, and the like. If you have to do this by providing standard library functions in your Random-Lisp distribution, fine. But if you don't do it, they'll be off writing scurvy hacks in RPN or BASIC or Lotus Macro Language, learning all the bad habits you're trying to shield them from. And somewhere along the lines, engineering students will *have* to learn Fortran, if only so they can do interesting *engineering* research without having to rewrite EISPAK and its hench-programs. > > [ ... ] I have just changed jobs. In no interview was I asked > > whether I knew ML; in every interview I was asked if I knew C. > [ good negative comment about interviewers ] The college I went to didn't offer COBOL, either, though it's probably useful in a "how the other half lives" survey course. I've been meaning to learn Zetalisp to upgrade my resume. (it starts with "Ada" or "Algol", depending on the interviewer. Any real interviewer will want to know what I *really* can do, but to interview at larger companies you may need the buzzword list there so the personnel people will pass it on to the people you really care about.) -- # Thanks; # Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs
wcs@ho95e.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart) (02/14/88)
In article <2809@omepd> pcm@iwarpo3.UUCP (Phil C. Miller) writes:
:The generalization inferred by this is that any programmer not exposed on
:day one to declarative languages is brain-damaged. This covers 99.99999%
:of programmers. Too bad, if only Donald Knuth and Per Brinch Hansen had seen
:ML before they were ruined.
I'd pay a lot for a version of Knuth's books with the algorithms
translated into a reasonable language instead of MIX. I don't
mean lisp, since his points about knowing what the machine's
really doing are correct, but Algol had been around for more
than 10 years, and it was *designed* for writing algorithms
readably. Even his "English-language" descriptions are mostly
spaghetti-code.
--
# Thanks;
# Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcsshebs%defun.utah.edu.uucp@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley T. Shebs) (02/15/88)
In article <170500012@uiucdcsb> robison@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >He [Knuth] has also >published a book of TeX's source code with commentary - in this he is certainly >a sparkling example of a programmer. The TeX source code is a sparkling example of documentation, but the code proper is nothing to write home about. Control flow is scrambled, there are zillions of strange little temporary variables, and side effects run rampant. If you don't believe it, try picking a feature from the TeXbook and finding out who is responsible for its behavior... I suspect that TeX is 1/4 to 1/3 larger and more complicated than necessary; would be interesting to recode it in a purely functional language and see how and if the complexity is reduced. >Arch D. Robison stan shebs shebs@cs.utah.edu
nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber) (02/16/88)
In article <1982@ho95e.ATT.COM> wcs@ho95e.UUCP (46323-Bill.Stewart,2G218,x0705,) writes:
. Remember that 1st-year students, even CS students, are studying
. more than just CS100, and, if possible, they should have *some*
. usable programming knowledge as soon as possible. While it's
. probably a Bad Thing to expose them to BASIC, whatever
. functional language you teach them had better be adequate for
. doing chemistry and physics homework, numerical integration for
. calculus, statistics for their psych classes, and the like.
I like the catch phrase 'usable programming knowledge' :-). 1st year students
usually do not need anything more than a calculator for intro courses in chem,
physics, calc, psych, etc. Take calculus, for example. Most of the
integration problems are not numerical but symbolic. If a 1st year student can
write a sufficiently complex (another catch phrase :-)) symbolic integration
program in BASIC, then there is no need to teach him BASIC in CS100. Let him
get on to what CS is all about (vs what the field of numeric calculation is all
about). And if he is just learning programming for the first time he won't be
able to program that symbolic integration program in time for it to make a
difference in his other courses. (Personally, I'd buy an HP-28S and learn to
program that; it is a lot easier to drag it around than an IBM PC and most of
the needed software is already built in. Then again, this assumes that I
already know how to program a little to start with).
. If you have to do this by providing standard library functions
. in your Random-Lisp distribution, fine. But if you don't do
. it, they'll be off writing scurvy hacks in RPN or BASIC or
. Lotus Macro Language, learning all the bad habits you're
. trying to shield them from. And somewhere along the lines,
. engineering students will *have* to learn Fortran, if only so
. they can do interesting *engineering* research without having
. to rewrite EISPAK and its hench-programs.
If they already know how to write the hacks in RPN or BASIC there is no need to
teach them those languages. And engineers DO NOT have to learn FORTRAN!!
Unless you are doing much numeric processing (and even then there are other
languages you can do it in), there are enough software packages out on the
market so that you never have to write programs on that low a level. (I am an
engineer and the only reason I know FORTRAN is because during a summer job I
had to interface to some graphics routines and my choice of languages were PL/I
and FORTRAN, and all I could find was the FORTRAN manual.)
.> > [ ... ] I have just changed jobs. In no interview was I asked
.> > whether I knew ML; in every interview I was asked if I knew C.
.> [ good negative comment about interviewers ]
. The college I went to didn't offer COBOL, either, though it's
. probably useful in a "how the other half lives" survey course.
. I've been meaning to learn Zetalisp to upgrade my resume.
. (it starts with "Ada" or "Algol", depending on the interviewer.
. Any real interviewer will want to know what I *really* can do,
. but to interview at larger companies you may need the buzzword list
. there so the personnel people will pass it on to the people you
. really care about.)
And no one is saying that you won't have that buzzword list by the time you
finish college. Why do you need it starting with CS100?? On my resume, I have
no less than 20 languages. Interviewers would ask me what my favorite
language is. I would tell them Icon, and would then explain why I liked it,
what it was good for, and what it was NOT good for. And Icon is not exactly a
buzzword for most jobs. Interviewers want to know what you can do, and not so
much what you have already done. Learn the good programming habits first; then
pick up all the 'fad' languages. It will pay off a lot better in the end.
--
_ __ NEVIN J. LIBER ..!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 (312) 510-6194
' ) ) "The secret compartment of my ring I fill
/ / _ , __o ____ with an Underdog super-energy pill."
/ (_</_\/ <__/ / <_ These are solely MY opinions, not AT&T's, blah blah blahdwh@twg-ap.UUCP (Dave Hamaker) (02/18/88)
In article <545@tuck.nott-cs.UUCP>, anw@nott-cs.UUCP writes: > ... This is pedagogically disastrous. "Forcing" them to do *anything* > will ensure that they treat you as the opposition.... and other wise things which express an attitude that teachers should lead by example rather than ideological edict. Hear! Hear!
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software) (02/19/88)
In article <545@tuck.nott-cs.UUCP>, anw@nott-cs.UUCP writes: >In article <1154@zen.UUCP> vic@zen.UUCP (Victor Gavin) writes: >>One of the main problems that I have noticed in classes is all the snotty > ^^^^^^ >>nosed kids who have ``learned'' to program at home on their BASIC computers, > ^^^^^ >>*all by themselves*. > We obviously have a better class of student than you do. Why knock > people who are motivated enough to do something "all by themselves"? > >Unfortunately their methods and practices usually stink. > We obviously have a better class of student than you do. Indeed, I learned BASIC "all by myself" in early high school (though I learned it on the school's computer). I also became quite a fan of Warnier-Orr diagrams, and thus learned to structure code in a language that had no concept of it (Dartmouth-style BASIC, none of this extension nonsense). > ...[name your favourite language]... Further, their Basic on a home > computer very likely runs rings around [nyfl] on [nyf computer] when > it comes to graphics, sound, games, etc. Their machine might even run rings around [nyf computer] in terms of speed: as a Freshman at MIT, I wrote a toy LISP interpreter in BASIC (largely to irritate those who asserted that BASIC was on a lower plane of existance) on a TRS-80 that a friend of mine had. He then proceeded to USE that LISP for assignments during the last week of school, because the load average on MIT-MULTICS had passed infinite about a week before that... :-) If you can show people that your concepts help ease programming, those who will ever pick it up will do so, and happily; those who don't, probably would not anyway. If you show people that they are insignificant little worms for ever having learned something that you disapprove of, you'll just preach to the converted. -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu "Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart
pcm@iwarpo.intel.com (Phil C. Miller) (02/21/88)
This discussion has been going on long enough so that it's getting tough to say who is saying what. Therefore, I'll preface each person's comments with their name instead of a cryptic series of punctuation characters. nevin1> refers to nevin1@ihlpf.UUCP (00704a-Liber,N.J.) wcs> refers to wcs@ho95e.UUCP (46323-Bill.Stewart,2G218,x0705,) writes) pcm> refers to me (Phil Miller, pcm@iwarpo.UUCP). wcs>. Remember that 1st-year students, even CS students, are studying wcs>. more than just CS100, and, if possible, they should have *some* wcs>. usable programming knowledge as soon as possible. While it's wcs>. probably a Bad Thing to expose them to BASIC, whatever wcs>. functional language you teach them had better be adequate for wcs>. doing chemistry and physics homework, numerical integration for wcs>. calculus, statistics for their psych classes, and the like. Good point, Bill. This is generally the point I was trying to make. nevin1> 1st year students usually do not need anything more than a nevin1> calculator for intro courses in chem, physics, calc, psych, etc. I think you are dating yourself. First year science courses were starting to make serious use of computers 15 years ago when I was a college freshman. As computing resources become more widely used in universities, students will need to know more and more about programming. Incidentally, I don't happen to feel that's a good thing. It would be nice if a physicist (for example) could stick primarily to physics and not have to learn a second discipline (computer science). Hopefully, the legacy of our generation of programmers will be a considerable simplification in computer user interfaces. wcs.> And somewhere along the lines, engineering students will *have* to wcs.> learn Fortran, if only so they can do interesting *engineering* wcs.> research without having to rewrite EISPAK and its hench-programs. nevin1> And engineers DO NOT have to learn FORTRAN!! On which planet? Your statement is rhetorical and doesn't have practical value. I think you would be hard pressed to find an engineering curriculum which didn't require FORTRAN (with the possible exception of Computer Science, which you may or may not count as engineering). pcm> [ ... ] I have just changed jobs. In no interview was I asked pcm> whether I knew ML; in every interview I was asked if I knew C. I've been generally amused at the response I've gotten to this statement. As a footnote, I'll add that I used to list ML on my resume as one of the programming languages I know. I finally removed it because (1) nobody had ever heard of it, and (2) when I explained what it was, they didn't care. wcs>. but to interview at larger companies you may need the buzzword list wcs>. there so the personnel people will pass it on to the people you wcs>. really care about.) ...and smaller companies can't afford to train you how to program in C, so you probably won't get a job there unless you know C. nevin1> Interviewers want to know what you can do, and not so much what you nevin1> have already done. HUH?????????????? Now I'm convinced you're from another planet. Companies usually want someone to work on a specific project. Someone with a track record in a related area to that project will be considerably more valuable than someone who only knows, say, functional programming languages. nevin1> Learn the good programming habits first; then pick up all the 'fad' nevin1> languages. It will pay off a lot better in the end. Now let me get this straight. Fortran, which has been around since about 1950, and C, which is the implementation language for the defacto industry standard operating system and about a jillion utilities and applications programs, these are the fad languages, right? Incidentally, the implication here is that you can't learn 'good programming habits' in C. Bullshit. Lucky for me, though, I know ML and Prolog, so if I ever have to your planet, I'll be able to get a job ;-). Phil Miller
robison@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu (02/23/88)
> It would be nice if a physicist (for example) could stick primarily to > physics and not have to learn a second discipline (computer science). This is becoming increasing unlikely for physicists. The problem is not user interfaces or computer grammar, but good algorithms. For example, most programmers know that linked lists are often much quicker to manipulate then arrays. How many physicists know what a linked list is? They probably don't need to know the gory details of pointers, but should know about asymptotic complexity analysis. (I don't intend to sound condescending to physicists. Some knowledge of physics is useful in CS, for example simulated annealing and ray tracing.) Some friends and I conjecture that a lot of supercomputer time is spent running poor algorithms. Anyone have any empirical evidence or anecdotes? Arch D. Robison University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign CSNET: robison@UIUC.CSNET UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!robison ARPA: robison@B.CS.UIUC.EDU (robison@UIUC.ARPA)
pcm@iwarpo3.intel.com (Phil C. Miller) (02/25/88)
In article <170500013@uiucdcsb> robison@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > In a related article, I (pcm) wrote: >> It would be nice if a physicist (for example) could stick primarily to >> physics and not have to learn a second discipline (computer science). >This is becoming increasing unlikely for physicists. The problem >is not user interfaces or computer grammar, but good algorithms. I obviously didn't make my point clear enough. I think that computer science will reach such an advanced state (at some point in the future) that applications programmers and users will have no need for such knowledge. At that point, architectural and algorithmic details will hopefully become background details which are handled transparently. An example of where this has already occurred is in the use of overlays: virtual memory has made one troublesome programming detail an obsolete consideration on most scientific computers. I am hopeful that the work on sophisticated user interfaces (like the Mac) will continue to (r)evolutionize computer science. Maybe someday physicists will be able to specify things at a more abstract level. Phil Miller
kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) (02/25/88)
> It would be nice if a physicist (for example) could stick primarily to > physics and not have to learn a second discipline (computer science). Some of the Nobel Prizes recently awarded in Economics might almost as well have been for Computer Science. The same is becomming true for Biology and Physics. Why don't they just give up and give us our own category?
nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber) (02/25/88)
First off, I don't know if it is worth answering a posting from someone who puts "/dev/null" in the 'Followup-To:' field of the header such as Phil did; people spend time and effort posting constructive followups. If you don't want followups Phil, don't post any articles! (no smiley) nevin1> refers to nevin1@ihlpf.UUCP (00704a-Liber,N.J.) wcs> refers to wcs@ho95e.UUCP (46323-Bill.Stewart,2G218,x0705,) writes) pcm> refers to pcm@iwarpo.UUCP (Phil C. Miller) nevin1> 1st year students usually do not need anything more than a nevin1> calculator for intro courses in chem, physics, calc, psych, etc. pcm> I think you are dating yourself. First year science courses were pcm> starting to make serious use of computers 15 years ago when I was a pcm> college freshman. As computing resources become more widely used in pcm> universities, students will need to know more and more about pcm> programming. It is you who are dating yourself. As you said yourself, you were a freshman 15 years ago. I was a freshman in the fall of 1983. I asked a number of friends around the country who are currently going for their undergrad degree or have recently (within 1 year) graduated what programming they did for their non-CS 100 level classes. So far, everyone I asked gave me the same answer: none. (And most of my friends are NOT CS majors!!) Most non-CS 100 level science & math courses are interested in teaching principles, not number crunching algorithms. Walk into a modern college PC lab and take a look at what the freshmen are doing. Most of them are only doing word processing. (I'm ignoring CAI since that is irrelevant to this discussion. As a side note, one summer a friend of mine wrote the CAI program for a class he had to take two semesters later. Now that's the way to get an 'A' :-)) The only thing I needed as a freshman was my trusty HP-15C (I probably didn't even need something as powerful as that but it was fun to play with :-)). I could bring it to lab or to a test. Try bringing a floppy-based PC or a terminal to a test; you'll be thrown out. And it would require an EXTENSIVE amount of programming on my part to be able to have the same power and flexibility that my calculator has. And it would be very expensive for me to buy all the software that I would need (as well as software integration headaches) to match my $70 calculator. As a matter of fact, the tests were graded little on whether or not I had the correct answer; the grading was skewed towards correct unerstanding of the principles. Most of my profs graded my homework and tests in the following way: 1 point for the correct numerical answer, 9 points for showing the work involved in getting that answer. Most of the problems in intro courses are one shot deals and are not really suited for programming. If I wrote a program I'd probably have to check the answer with a calculator anyway (well, not me per se; ALL my programs work the first time I type them in :-) :-)). pcm> Incidentally, I don't happen to feel that's a good thing. It would be pcm> nice if a physicist (for example) could stick primarily to physics and pcm> not have to learn a second discipline (computer science). Hopefully, pcm> the legacy of our generation of programmers will be a considerable pcm> simplification in computer user interfaces. This is about the only point I agree with you on. I think we are going towards this state. More on this later. nevin1> And engineers DO NOT have to learn FORTRAN!! pcm> On which planet? Your statement is rhetorical and doesn't have practical pcm> value. I think you would be hard pressed to find an engineering curriculum pcm> which didn't require FORTRAN (with the possible exception of Computer Science, pcm> which you may or may not count as engineering). My field of study was computer ENGINEERING (not COMPUTER SCIENCE, although I have since seen the error of my ways :-)), which is more similar to Electrical Engineering than CS. There was only 1--count 'em--1 ELECTIVE which used Fortran--numerical methods. I used to work for an engineering consulting firm (mainly mechanical engineers) and all the number crunching they had to do (which was very little) was done with specific off-the-shelf packages; no one there did any programming. The off-the-shelf products were simply much easier to use and hence cheaper (in terms of total time) than having to write everything they needed in Fortran. pcm>. [ ... ] I have just changed jobs. In no interview was I asked pcm>. whether I knew ML; in every interview I was asked if I knew C. Me neither, but I have been asked what my favorite PL was. It's much more interesting to talk about Icon than to talk about C (this is not a flame against C; C is my third favorite language after Icon and C++). nevin1> Interviewers want to know what you can do, and not so much what you nevin1> have already done. pcm> HUH?????????????? Now I'm convinced you're from another planet. Companies pcm> usually want someone to work on a specific project. Someone with a track pcm> record in a related area to that project will be considerably more valuable pcm> than someone who only knows, say, functional programming languages. STOP MISQUOTING ME!! I never said that you should know ONLY functional PLs. As a matter of fact, I said that you SHOULD know a variety of types of PLs! I do agree that knowing a related area is a plus. But, using an analogy, would you hire a car mechanic because he knows how to use a screwdriver? A language is just a tool; nothing more. But good programmers are much more than coders! Most companies would rather hire someone with knowledge in their field than someone who only knows how to code. nevin1> Learn the good programming habits first; then pick up all the 'fad' nevin1> languages. It will pay off a lot better in the end. pcm> Now let me get this straight. Fortran, which has been around since about pcm> 1950, and C, which is the implementation language for the defacto industry pcm> standard operating system and about a jillion utilities and applications pcm> programs, these are the fad languages, right? By 'fad' I mean currently popular; I have said nothing on whether the language is 'good' or 'bad'. The first 'fad' HLLs were FORTRAN and COBOL; then came BASIC, then Pascal, and finally C. In the future I would suspect that C++ would be next (just a guess, though). We have found better languages and techniques since the '50s. Model-Ts have been around since the 1900s, and a 'jillion' people bought them, but you don't find too many of them on the highways anymore :-). The application programs are becoming simpler to use; you shouldn't have to program a computer to use one (in much the same way that you shouln't have to build a car to drive one). pcm> Incidentally, the implication here is that you can't learn 'good programming pcm> habits' in C. Bullshit. You can USE good programming techniques in C, but I don't think that you will LEARN good techniques and style from just learning C. Now, if all C programs were required to pass through lint without any errors or warnings, that might be a different story... :-). -- _ __ NEVIN J. LIBER ..!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 (312) 510-6194 ' ) ) "The secret compartment of my ring I fill / / _ , __o ____ with an Underdog super-energy pill." / (_</_\/ <__/ / <_ These are solely MY opinions, not AT&T's, blah blah blah
dph@beta.UUCP (David P Huelsbeck) (02/27/88)
In article <2848@omepd> pcm@iwarpo3.UUCP (Phil C. Miller) writes: [...] > > I obviously didn't make my point clear enough. I think that computer > science will reach such an advanced state (at some point in the future) > that applications programmers and users will have no need for such > knowledge. > > At that point, architectural and algorithmic details will hopefully > become background details which are handled transparently. An example > of where this has already occurred is in the use of overlays: virtual ^^^^^^^ > memory has made one troublesome programming detail an obsolete ^^^^^^ > consideration on most scientific computers. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [...] >Phil Miller I think you're right when you say most, but ... Crays at least do *NOT* have virtual memory. I once tried to argue that this was a real shortcoming with some of the hardcore coders around here. (see organization line) Of course being that most of my experience and information came from my udergraduate CS studies and their experience and information came from *real* experience, I lost. The fact is that until some sort of amazingly sophisticated automatic analysis system is created programmers (real ones anyway) will know much more about their progams amd their memeory requirements etc. than any compiler/os/runtime envirionment will ever know. So when real perfomance is a must there will be no substitute for do it yourself, preprogrammed management like overlays. (yes, people here use overlays often for a variety of reasons) In the past I've seen people suggest that ease of expression and understanding should always take precidence over trying to write efficient code and faster hardware will solve the inefficiency problem. Well we've got a lot of pretty fast hardware and nobody seems satisfied that it runs fast enough that programming efficiency can be ignored. However, as you've said maybe some day computer science will advance to the point where no obscure code or special hardware understanding will be needed to write optimal code. Let's hope so. But I don't think we should all start holding our breath quite yet. David Huelsbeck dph@lanl.gov {ihnp4,cmcl2}!lanl!dph #include <std/disclaimers.h>
steve@nuchat.UUCP (Steve Nuchia) (02/28/88)
From article <170500013@uiucdcsb>, by robison@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu: > Some friends and I conjecture that a lot of supercomputer time > is spent running poor algorithms. Anyone have any empirical > evidence or anecdotes? I think you're right.... A friend of mine (NOT a FOAF) has a half-dozen of these fancy wall clocks with little plaques on them praising him for saving the company (a NASA contractor, so indirecly the government) some number of dollars. The company's cost-reduction reward program includes several gifts, of which the clock represents the highest level. Needless to say, the bean counters won't let him have any of the lesser gifts even though he has all the clocks he can use.... These come from walking by a bunch of programmers working on some "trivial" program and making small changes that effect significant changes in run time. One example, which is fresh in my mind as I had to endure a retelling of it last night over some suds: A certain trivial algorithm was to be run over some data. It performed an operation analogous to averaging - the details are unimportant. In addition to being naively written with respect to numerical issues (got the wrong answer) it had this other problem... It took over two hours to run for something like 600,000 records... Turns out the dataset was in some binary format and these clowns were turning it into card images and reading it with FORTRAN formatted input. Recoding to read the original binary data cut the runtime to a much more reasonable figure, like maybe two minutes. Since they were planning to run the program "several thousand" times over the next few months this amounted to something over a million dollars in cost savings... Its sad but people who do good work are far outnumbered by the marching morons, to the extent that management in many industries thinks software is _supposed_ to be difficult and expensive and not work very well. sigh. Oh - another anecdote - it seems this programmer had been submitting version after version of this little program to the cray... like for a month. It just kept getting the wrong answer, and he couldn't figure out why. My friend says "What answer is it giving you?" "Zero." "Hmmm, where is it calculating it?" "Right here." "Well, if you change that 1 to a 1.0 it won't do that any more..." If I had ever worked around a super computer myself I could probably give you some first hand anecdotes - I sure have enough from the micro and mini realm. -- Steve Nuchia | [...] but the machine would probably be allowed no mercy. uunet!nuchat!steve | In other words then, if a machine is expected to be (713) 334 6720 | infallible, it cannot be intelligent. - Alan Turing, 1947
oz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) (02/29/88)
In article <1154@zen.UUCP> vic@zen.UUCP (Victor Gavin) writes: > >I personally feel that the teaching of a non-procedural language in the first >year of a computing science course is an excellent idea. > My first programming language (ignoring a lousy course on PL/C) was APL, taught extremely well, and to this day, I consider that APL course to be a *turning point* both for my CS education and my career. [Probably lisp would have had a similar impact, provided that the dialect is scheme]. Of course, after APL, learning to live (years later) with UN*X and C was much easier. :-) oz (once-warped-by-apl) -- Those who lose the sight Usenet: [decvax|ihnp4]!utzoo!yunexus!oz of what is really important ......!seismo!mnetor!yunexus!oz are destined to become Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yulibra|yuyetti] irrelevant. - anon Phonet: +1 416 736-5257 x 3976
robison@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu (03/01/88)
The anecdote of steve@nuchat.UUCP reminds me of a bizarre
and poor set of subroutines written in FORTRAN by an engineering
student. The student wanted to do bit manipulations for stuff
like fast Fourier index computation. So he wrote routines
which represented binary numbers with decimal digits. That is
the number 9 would be converted to 1001, where 1001 means
``one thousand and one.'' He then wrote weird routines to
simulate bitwise logical operations and bit reversals of the
decimal representations. Sort of a computational Victor/Victoria:
a binary machine simulating a decimal machine simulating a binary machine!
Arch D. Robison
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
CSNET: robison@UIUC.CSNET
UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!robison
ARPA: robison@B.CS.UIUC.EDU (robison@UIUC.ARPA)sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) (03/01/88)
A Cunnigham (cstjc@itspna.ed.ac.uk) writes: >>...and smaller companies can't afford to train you how to program in C, >>so you probably won't get a job there unless you know C. > >But if you know HOW TO PROGRAM then it doesn't matter if you know C ( or any >other language for that matter ). All you need is the manual and a language >definition. Basically right. But the people at the personal department may have another point of view. -- Erland Sommarskog ENEA Data, Stockholm sommar@enea.UUCP "Souvent pour s'amuser les hommes d'equipages and it's like talking to a stranger" -- H&C.
emo@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (03/02/88)
To offer some more information: Lisp has been ``around'' since the '50s as well. In fact, I have often heard that Lisp is second only to FORTRAN in being the oldest (high-level) language. And, as ``oz'' mentions, Scheme can contribute to a ``turning point'' in one's education... The first language that I learned was UCI Lisp running on a DEC-10 (access was via a 300 baud phone link... and I thought that was reasonable at the time, ~'79)... then came Pascal... then some assembler (6809 variety)... then I learned Scheme... C (and Unix) followed shortly. What can be said of this chaotic learning strategy?... I would have to say that personally, the high points were UCI Lisp (being the first introduction to computing) and Scheme (being the first time I really understood the ideas behind structural design and the power of abstraction). For several reasons learning C was important too, but the foundations had already been constructed upon the pillars of Lisp/Scheme. Knowing what I do today, I would say without hesitation, that Scheme is an excellent choice for a first language... In ending, I'd like to restate what someone has said previously: programming languages are tools, a means to affect solutions to problems in the ``real world''. However, there is such a thing as ``style''... with the ease and pleasure that one ascribes to the task of programming depending to a large extent on one's understanding of the tool(s) being used as well as the problem domain. By utilizing a clean structure initially, e.g. Scheme with its clean semantics, one is able to build a more stable foundation upon which to base the development and understanding of programming methodologies, as well as the theories behind them. Are there any other people who have formed similar conclusions about Scheme? eric ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; Eric Ost CSnet: emo@indiana Computer Science Dept. Usenet: emo@iuvax Indiana University Arpanet: emo@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu Bloomington, Indiana 47405 (812)-335-5561 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
shebs%defun.utah.edu.uucp@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley T. Shebs) (03/03/88)
In article <8200001@iuvax> emo@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu writes: >[...] I would say without hesitation, that >Scheme is an excellent choice for a first language... I agree. On the other hand, I have not observed that students who learn Scheme first are significantly better at doing "real" programming - their C code is just as ugly. (This is based on a rather limited sample.) Has anyone been able to demonstrate that teaching a particular language first has a real effect on program quality after graduation? stan shebs shebs@cs.utah.edu
csrdi@its63b.ed.ac.uk (Janet: rick@uk.ac.ed) (03/04/88)
In response to Jonathan Eunice's response to Tony Cunningham's reponse to.... tjc> CS1 courses exist to teach people about computer science. They are tjc> not in general service courses for other departments. jon>What makes you think that good programming techniques are going to be jon>any different when found in physicists, say, than when found in jon>computer scientists? I don't think Tony ever said they would be. What he perhaps didn't make clear was that Computer Science courses *qua* Computer Science courses necessarily involve teaching good programming techniques. Another point is that physicists (for example) will require (for the forseeable future) different programming techniques from computer scientists. The most a computer science course can do for them is teach them the essentials. After that, they get it from their own department. This may reflect a difference between American and British universities; any further thoughts about this from anyone? >Programming is a SKILL, not a science. Agreed. However, like any skill, there are certain ways of doing things which can be formalised into a 'scientific' basis. >You use "computer science" as though it is some higher religion that is >defiled by teaching it to heathens, unbelievers, or people from >other departments. You mean it isn't? :-) Seriously, though, you missed one of Tony's points. In this university, we teach one first-year course for intending Computer Science graduates, one for students of other science departments who need to be taught computing, and one for non-scientists. That, at least, is how the three courses (Computer Science 1A, Computer Science 1B and Information Systems 1) are perceived. That is not to say that only intending Computer Scientists take CS1A; I was an Arts student when I did the course, but that's a whole 'nother posting. (Oh no not another they cry!) Returning to the point, the contents of each course are different; in particular the CS1A course (for intending Computer Science graduates) contains theoretical material missing from the CS1B course. On the other hand, CS1B covers more general issues (not in great detail) which are missing from the CS1A course (most of which are covered in greater detail in later years). Included in this is the existence of other languages, like LISP and ML. bill?> [...] It would be nice if a physicist (for example) could stick bill?> primarily to physics and not have to learn a second discipline bill?> (computer science). Very nice. Unfortunately I don't see this happening in the too-near future, although I feel it should be one of the goals of Computer Science. >Yes, but if a scientist is going to use a tool, like a computer, it >would be a good idea to learn how to use it, to gain some skill at it. Couldn't agree more. This is why the Computer Science department teaches first year engineers how to program. And a bit about how the machines work, as well. jon> Again, let's not confuse the art of programming with science. H'm...does this mean "let's not call programming a science when it is really an art", or does it mean "let's not confuse this art of programming by bringing science into it"? (grin) Seriously, again, there is a scientific element to certain areas of computing, with effects in the field of programming. In particular, things like algorithm analysis and formal methodologies can be of use to the programmer. tjc> Computer Science most certainly IS NOT engineering. If anything it's a tjc> branch of mathematics. jon>Then your computer science is different from the one I see. The bulk jon>of what people call computer science is people designing and building jon>new operating systems, compilers, expert systems, hardware, languages, jon>communication networks, and so on. This is *engineering*... [ the rest of Jonathon's lengthy bit about science v engineering deleted] Ah. We have here, it seems to me, too great a distinction being drawn between engineering and science. Engineering, in this context, seems to me to be an application of science. This not to say that science is in any way superior to engineering; more that they're different sides of the same coin. A coin called technology. Engineers require a certian amount of scientific knowledge. Chemical engineers need to know chemistry, mechanical and electrical engineers need to know a certain amount of physics. This material provides a theoretical basis to the technology with which these people work. Likewise, then, computer programmers require a certain theoretical basis from which to work. From this we can build up a discipline which could be called 'software engineering'. To quote from Jonathon: jon>The bulk of CS, as it is generally talked about, is engineering -- jon>designing, working out practical problems, implementing, etc. I submit that this work is simplified by the existence and *use* of a theoretical basis from which this engineering can proceed. I'm not sure, but I think Jonathon agrees with this to some extent: jon> There is no *science* being done in these applied areas, even jon>though the application may further knowledge in the field. I think part of the overall problem is a difference in semantics. Engineers in the States, if I recall rightly, are part of a highly respected profession. Unfortunately in the UK, a certain snobbery still exists which condemns engineers to being a lower form of life than scientists. Hence, engineering is cognate with greasy hands and sweaty brows rather than white coats and air-conditioned offices. Back to Jonathon: jon>The science of computers is the less-popular theory -- jon>the study of things like computability, decidability, and algorithms. Returning briefly the issue of 'engineering vs mathematics', can I point out that issues such as computability and decidability arose from work on formal systems which predates the existence of computers, and which was largely carried out by logicians and mathematicians? It is from this formal background that our present day notions of what is computable are derived. In this sense, Computer Science is indeed a branch of mathematics. As Tony's pointed out in another article, perhaps if an interest in this work was taken by more programmers, we would have better programs being written. pcm> [ ... ] I have just changed jobs. In no interview was I asked pcm> whether I knew ML; in every interview I was asked if I knew C. bill?> [...] I used to list ML on my resume as one of the programming languages bill?> I know. I finally removed it because (1) nobody had ever heard of it, bill?> and (2) when I explained what it was, they didn't care. tjc> If they don't care then they ain't worth working for! jon>Anthony is clearly not going to get a job in the US. Well, that's you told, Antoine! Mind you, I agree. (Fortunately, I have no desire to work in the US.) nevin1> Learn the good programming habits first jon>YES YES YES YES YES Yes. Now we come back to the origin of the matter. As I said a few posting back, I have found that learning other programming languages *helps* learn good habits. First off, structure: This is enforced by languages like Pascal and Modula, which therefore make them good ideas as teaching languages. Languages like C , FORTRAN and IMP (another of our obscure Edinburgh languages, but one of the most efficient OS's in the world is written in it) do not enforce structure and therefore allow bad habits to develop. However, languages like Prolog and ML also have uses. The Artificial Intelligence department uses Prolog for its undergraduate teaching. The CS department teaches ML, partly to give a feel for other styles of programming and partly to illustrate the some of the theoretical material taught in the course. Having programmed in ML certainly makes Computability Theory more understandable; it has also affected the way I think about functions when I'm writing in procedural languages. Even if my prospective employer has never heard of it, I am a better programmer for the experience. Likewise, my current work with Smalltalk has led to a change in the way I view data structures. I'm not likely to find a job working with Smalltalk immediately I graduate, but the knowledge is worthwhile. Well, that's that said. How do I finish up? I think I'll just stick in my signature and leave it at that.... --Rick. -- Janet: rick@uk.ac.ed BITNET: rick%uk.ac.ed@UKACRL ARPA: rick@ed.ac.uk UUCP: rick%uk.ac.ed%ukc@mcvax "Life would be so much easier if everyone read the manual."
nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber) (03/04/88)
In article <15973@beta.UUCP> dph@LANL.GOV (David P Huelsbeck) writes:
.
.Crays at least do *NOT* have virtual memory.
.
.I once tried to argue that this was a real shortcoming
.with some of the hardcore coders around here. (see organization line)
.Of course being that most of my experience and information
.came from my udergraduate CS studies and their experience
.and information came from *real* experience, I lost.
Think about *why* Crays don't have virtual memory (at least the ones doing lots
of number crunching; I don't know about the ones running Unix). In order to
implement this, an indirect reference (to a page table) must be made on each
memory reference. This is a non-significant overhead for a machine that is
designed to run as fast as possible. Also, if a page is not in memory it would
sit around doing nothing waiting for the OS to put the page in memory (and
possible swap one out). And it is a lot efficient to swap in exactly over some
code which no longer needs to be used (ie, use of overlays), than to page as
memory is needed.
.So when real perfomance is a must there will
.be no substitute for do it yourself, preprogrammed management like
.overlays. (yes, people here use overlays often for a variety of reasons)
I hope you are not implying that whenever you need performance, use overlays!
This simply isn't true. It is just one of the techniques used for efficient
programming.
.In the past I've seen people suggest that ease of expression and understanding
.should always take precidence over trying to write efficient code and
.faster hardware will solve the inefficiency problem. Well we've got
.a lot of pretty fast hardware and nobody seems satisfied that it runs
.fast enough that programming efficiency can be ignored.
That is only stressed in school. In the 'real world', people want both
efficient AND readable code. Basically, use slightly harder to understand
code if it will change the performance dramatically (of course this statement
is situation-dependent).
--
_ __ NEVIN J. LIBER ..!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 (312) 510-6194
' ) ) "The secret compartment of my ring I fill
/ / _ , __o ____ with an Underdog super-energy pill."
/ (_</_\/ <__/ / <_ These are solely MY opinions, not AT&T's, blah blah blahmike@ists (Mike Clarkson) (03/06/88)
Just a couple of really short points I'd like to make: MIT teaches Scheme (a dialect of Lisp) for its 1'st year engineering course. If you're not familliar with the book "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" by Abelson and Sussman (MIT Press), I recommend it very highly. It is incredibily beautiful from a computer "Science" point of view, and intended for scientists and engineers at the same time. I guess I feel that these two cultures don't *have* to be polarized, but as someone pointed out, good luck convincing the first year syllabus director of that... And secondly, although FORTRAN is abysmal beyond description, people who have never used it for scientific programming should be aware of a couple of very simple reasons why C, Pascal etc are not viable alternatives. 1) there is no exponentiation operator defined. Neither C or Pascal have an equivalent to the FORTRAN ** operator. I assure you no scientist will write much code in a language that doesn't have this - it's too painful. 2) neither C or Pascal handle complex variables. For work in quantum mechanics this is important, and it's again too painful to start using records/structures for this. -- Mike Clarkson mike@ists.UUCP Institute for Space and Terrestrial Science York University, North York, Ontario, CANADA M3J 1P3 (416) 736-5611